Film director Darryl Yap has posted a P20,000 bail after the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court issued an arrest warrant against him on March 19, 2025.
The warrant was issued over two counts of libel related to the teaser of his upcoming film, “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma.”
With the bail posted, Yap avoided detention, and the court recalled the order.
His arraignment is scheduled for March 26, 2025. Both Yap and Vic Sotto have declined to comment further.
The controversy stems from the film’s teaser, released on January 1, 2025.
Which allegedly implies that veteran actor Vic Sotto was involved in the 1982 rape case of Pepsi Paloma.
In response, Sotto took legal action, claiming that the teaser twisted the facts and damaged his reputation.
The court ordered the teaser’s removal from all online platforms but allowed the film’s production to continue, citing artistic freedom.
Following this, government prosecutors pursued cyber libel charges against Yap, asserting that the teaser subjected Sotto to public contempt and defamation.
The court found sufficient grounds to proceed with the case, leading to the issuance of the arrest warrant.
The film revisits the 1982 scandal where the late Pepsi Paloma, then 15, accused comedians Vic Sotto, Joey de Leon, and Richie D’Horsie of gang rape.
The case was highly publicized, with the accused initially denying the allegations but later issuing a public apology.
Paloma later withdrew the charges after signing an Affidavit of Desistance.
The case has ignited discussions on artistic freedom, historical accountability, and the ethical implications of revisiting controversial events through media.
Libel is a legal offense involving false and damaging statements made publicly about someone. Yap was charged with libel because his film teaser allegedly made defamatory claims against Vic Sotto, suggesting involvement in a historical crime.
A writ of habeas data is a legal remedy used to protect a person’s right to privacy against inaccurate or damaging information. Sotto used it to demand the removal of the film teaser, arguing it misrepresented historical facts.
Yes, the court only ordered the removal of the teaser but allowed the film to continue production. However, the legal case may impact the film’s release and distribution.
Keep Reading: Duterte Arrives in The Hague to Face Trial Before ICC — Case Proceedings Begins
Leave a Reply